D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Guest 6801328]

Winnie the Pooh.

He's just a bear of Little Brain, and he has the most amusing misunderstandings and gets confused very easily. But he does not walk around drooling saying "Herpaderp". He's just...slow on the logic, deep on the instinctive wisdom.

 

[Mallus]

Would it not disturb your level of enjoyment of GoT if the writers/GRMM craft situations where Hodor repeatedly comes up with the 'party's' battle plan?
The party consisting of Tyrion Lannister, Samwell Tarly and Jon Snow.

In Game of Thrones, General Hodor would bother me.

In a more comedic version of Game of Thrones --the kind hinted it that wonderful Arya & Hound chicken scene-- it wouldn't bother me.

In a game of D&D, which is a participatory medium, natch, General Hodor wouldn't bother me at all. I'd probably enjoy running a campaign w/that character. Because, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] pointed out (and, really, did he need to?), the game of Dungeons & Dragon is primarily a set of intellectual challenges (despite the gloriously stupid things we do in/with/to it).

Planning, tactics, strategies, figuring stuff out -- that's what you do when you play the game. Trying to argue that "good role-playing" means not participating in the core activities of the game is kinda dumb. And trying to put that into practice at the table is a great way of ensuring people play a lot of Candy Crush on their phones during a session. Why would any DM try to discourage participation/brainstorming/engagement? Aren't they hallmarks of a successful session?

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a PC's 5 INT to affect their characterization. It's, well, inane to expect the player of a 5 INT PC not to play the game. Or, rather, if a DM thinks low INT PCs are essentially excluded from participating in the game, they shouldn't allow them in the first place -- or give every PC whatever arbitrary minimum INT they decide is required to join in the fun.

edit/addendum - of course there's 'asymmetry' between physical & mental stats in the game. D&D is a game played by problem-solving. Not by lifting weights, riding a real horse, or actually setting your neighborhood on fire. Physical challenges test the character. Certain mental challenges test the character, i.e, knowing a bit of magical lore or setting history. Every other mental challenge --plans & whatnot & everything else that falls under the heading 'decision-making' -- test the player.

Because it's, you know, a game they're playing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I just cleared my ignore list yesterday and didn't realize until now that you're engaged in this discussion. As I recall, I blocked you a while back because you were unable to discuss a topic without constantly turning on the outrage manufacturing machine to distract from the points being made. So perhaps we can give this another try:

Just as a friendly aside, how do you expect this conversation to proceed when your first response to my in this thread is a slur? I'm curious as to whether you thought that labeling me a, what was it, "outrage manufacturing machine" was going to be helpful to discourse?

As I have stated numerous times in this thread, my objection is to the assertion that there is an objectively right or wrong way to roleplay a character as set forth by the rules as some in this thread have stated, suggested, or supported. Yeah, I think that the way some of you guys choose to prioritize is a complete waste of time and energy. You probably think the same of me. That's fine - those are all opinions, not assertions of fact.

Given as how this is the first response to me, you may have missed my statements on the matter, which are largely in tune with you on 'lack of objective means'. However, I don't find the argument that such objective rules don't exist means that there are no restrictions whatsoever, which does seem to me (correct me if I'm wrong) to be your argument. The game has a clear slant towards low intelligence being, well, low intelligence, and people have a general idea of what low intelligence at least kinda sorta looks like, and it's not Sherlock Holmes. Expecting that a player will at least try to approximate, to the best of their ability, a low intelligence score is not unreasonable, and has a reasonable footing in the game in the description of intelligence. Hard, objective rule? No, granted. Reasonable expectation of players? Yes. Can there be exceptions? Sure, but that should be agreed to between the player and the GM, and not left in the realm of 'the rules don't say I can't, so...'

It's when you (the universal "you") starts saying the rules say this is the right way to roleplay Int 5 and that is the wrong way that you're going to get pushback. I'm not the one claiming others are having "badwrongfun," as you stated. I'm arguing against such a notion, even if I think the way of some of you conduct yourselves at your own tables isn't my cup of tea. Therefore, if you are arguing against notions of "badwrongfun," we are in fact in agreement on that point. It's pretty clear to me who is saying others are having "badwrongfun" and who isn't. I invite you to reexamine this so that it is clear to you, too.

.
That's nice, please remove me from the universal you, I'm not in that camp. And my point of you saying 'badwrongfun' is specifically in reference to you labeling someone as 'that guy' if they don't agree with your playstyle. Granted, it was couched in terms of being at your table, and everyone has the ability to determine who they play with on whatever criteria they wish, but the implication was much wider than just your table.

Finally, as to whether it's intended for us to portray our characters in accordance with ability scores, that is up to the individual since the rules do not mandate it either way. I might do, or I might choose not to. It's up to me to decide that, nobody else, social contract aside. The consequences for having low ability scores will arise when it's time for me to roll some dice which I will try to avoid to the best of my ability anyway no matter what my ability score.

Generally, I find the 'doesn't say I can't in the rules' types of argument to be very weak and often used to excuse blatant abuse of the game. Not implying that you do that, just putting that argument into context for how valid it is. The rules don't say a lot of things. They don't say that you can't shoot laser beams out of your eyes, for instance, yet that's something that kinda goes without saying. To touch on a common argument in this thread, the rules also don't say that frogs can't take IQ tests, but you're a strong opponent of the Frogs Have IQs, Too movement it would appear. Clearly, 'frogs can't take IQ tests isn't in the rules' isn't a compelling argument for you in that regard, either, because, as I believe you've said, you know what a frog is and will run your game with that knowledge (heavy paraphrase there, not claiming that as a quote). How far, exactly, is it from knowing that frogs can't take IQ tests to knowing that a very low INT score shouldn't be a smart guy? We all make judgement calls when the rules aren't clear, based on how we think the world should be. I don't find it compelling that your argument in one such case is entirely rules-being-absent driven while in a similar case it's however you say it is because that's your call.

If I had to guess, the actual difference here isn't a lack of a rule, it's that the decision affects a PC, and you've a strong record of never agreeing to any restrictions on the declarations of PCs. Since expecting a low INT score to be at least nodded at in player roleplaying, I imagine that this trips this sacred cow of yours, and explains your vehemence in arguing and willingness to engaging in slurs of people that challenge this belief of yours. IIRC, it's a similar topic that landed me on your ignore list previously. At that time, I didn't recognize the strength of your conviction of the inviolate nature of PCs, and mistook your strident words for attempting to declare how others should play to your preferred style. Honestly, you come across similarly here, but I've read more of you (and don't hold grudges often) and recognize that this is a topic on which you will always respond strongly. And I can respect that. All I'm asking is that you step back a moment and recognize that others may come at this differently, and their methods are just as valid as yours, and don't deserve being labelled as 'that guy' for stating them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think I'd give Hodor a 2 Intelligence, precedents from the Monster Manual notwithstanding. I would consider Hodor "unplayable" as a PC because of his intelligence, so therefore by definition his intelligence must be outside the range of playable values.

At the same time, I can appreciate how others might think that Hodor is absolutely "playable" and that you could level 1 to 20 without ever solving puzzles or interacting with NPCs or basically doing anything that isn't instinct (self-preservation or protection of others) or obedience. Not for me, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Winnie the Pooh.

He's just a bear of Little Brain, and he has the most amusing misunderstandings and gets confused very easily. But he does not walk around drooling saying "Herpaderp". He's just...slow on the logic, deep on the instinctive wisdom.

Just as total aside, the Pooh audio-book here is fantastic. Read by a tremendous cast, it features Judy Dench as the narrator and Stephen Fry as Pooh. Completely changed my outlook on Pooh, as Fry plays him a good bit more self centered than the Disney versions. It's wonderful

 

[iserith]

Just as a friendly aside, how do you expect this conversation to proceed when your first response to my in this thread is a slur? I'm curious as to whether you thought that labeling me a, what was it, "outrage manufacturing machine" was going to be helpful to discourse?

I'm just putting you on notice that if we start going down that particular road again, we'll be done communicating pretty quickly. I'm being neither friendly nor unfriendly in that statement.

Given as how this is the first response to me, you may have missed my statements on the matter, which are largely in tune with you on 'lack of objective means'. However, I don't find the argument that such objective rules don't exist means that there are no restrictions whatsoever, which does seem to me (correct me if I'm wrong) to be your argument. The game has a clear slant towards low intelligence being, well, low intelligence, and people have a general idea of what low intelligence at least kinda sorta looks like, and it's not Sherlock Holmes. Expecting that a player will at least try to approximate, to the best of their ability, a low intelligence score is not unreasonable, and has a reasonable footing in the game in the description of intelligence. Hard, objective rule? No, granted. Reasonable expectation of players? Yes. Can there be exceptions? Sure, but that should be agreed to between the player and the GM, and not left in the realm of 'the rules don't say I can't, so...'

It is not unreasonable to have an expectation at your table that players will play a particular way based on the social contract. It ends there in my view, as it pertains to how Intelligence is portrayed.

That's nice, please remove me from the universal you, I'm not in that camp. And my point of you saying 'badwrongfun' is specifically in reference to you labeling someone as 'that guy' if they don't agree with your playstyle. Granted, it was couched in terms of being at your table, and everyone has the ability to determine who they play with on whatever criteria they wish, but the implication was much wider than just your table.

The implication was one of opinion and I did not present or intend it in any other way. In fact, most of the statements involving "that guy" were made in jest. I don't think anyone would think I actually had a meeting with all D&D players and we decided "that guy" sucked, right?

Generally, I find the 'doesn't say I can't in the rules' types of argument to be very weak and often used to excuse blatant abuse of the game. Not implying that you do that, just putting that argument into context for how valid it is. The rules don't say a lot of things. They don't say that you can't shoot laser beams out of your eyes, for instance, yet that's something that kinda goes without saying. To touch on a common argument in this thread, the rules also don't say that frogs can't take IQ tests, but you're a strong opponent of the Frogs Have IQs, Too movement it would appear. Clearly, 'frogs can't take IQ tests isn't in the rules' isn't a compelling argument for you in that regard, either, because, as I believe you've said, you know what a frog is and will run your game with that knowledge (heavy paraphrase there, not claiming that as a quote). How far, exactly, is it from knowing that frogs can't take IQ tests to knowing that a very low INT score shouldn't be a smart guy? We all make judgement calls when the rules aren't clear, based on how we think the world should be. I don't find it compelling that your argument in one such case is entirely rules-being-absent driven while in a similar case it's however you say it is because that's your call.

If I had to guess, the actual difference here isn't a lack of a rule, it's that the decision affects a PC, and you've a strong record of never agreeing to any restrictions on the declarations of PCs. Since expecting a low INT score to be at least nodded at in player roleplaying, I imagine that this trips this sacred cow of yours, and explains your vehemence in arguing and willingness to engaging in slurs of people that challenge this belief of yours. IIRC, it's a similar topic that landed me on your ignore list previously. At that time, I didn't recognize the strength of your conviction of the inviolate nature of PCs, and mistook your strident words for attempting to declare how others should play to your preferred style. Honestly, you come across similarly here, but I've read more of you (and don't hold grudges often) and recognize that this is a topic on which you will always respond strongly. And I can respect that. All I'm asking is that you step back a moment and recognize that others may come at this differently, and their methods are just as valid as yours, and don't deserve being labelled as 'that guy' for stating them.

See, my argument is far more specific than some are making it out to be. Assertions were made that you either roleplay a particular way or you're doing it wrong - and that the rules made this clear statement of preference a fact. I object to that assertion. That is all, nothing more.

 

[Mallus]

Plus a lot of the plot and interaction we have is driven by Arcana, History and Investigation, are you SURE you want to put it there?"

See, this bit here is a good example of how a PCs low INT should affect play. It reduces the amount of information... ahem... informing the player's decision-making/planning process. While acknowledging the player is still going to participate in the figuring stuff out.

As an aside, the group I DM for was critically short in the "smart PC" department. So I eventually created a NPC scholar/perpetual graduate student NPC for them; one Albus Ardor Lovelace Newton the 3rd. He isn't there to make plans for them, or figure our interminable chess board puzzles. His purpose is to feed certain kinds of information to the book-learnin' deficient PCs so they can make more informed plans & decisions.

Since this is a game of D&D, he can also fight pretty good if it comes to that. And of course it will.

 

[Hriston]

The major flaw there is that those number apply to Earth and Earth only. They don't apply to a D&D world where people at the upper end are far more common.

You know that D&D in all its iterations is a game right? Its not the real world. In a game what the numbers means can be vary different from the real world. So in the D&D game an 18 can equal a 180 IQ.

That isn't how IQ scores work. The current practice is to assign IQ scores based on their rarity within the population being tested. Assuming a distribution of scores resulting from 3d6, which is the basis for regarding a score of 10.5 as average, 1 in 216 (about 0.5% of the population) will have a score of 18. This is far more common than an IQ of 180 which, by definition, only 1 in about 18,460,000 could possibly have (that's about 0.00000005%), and that's assuming a fantasy test capable of measuring an Intelligence score that high. As I said up-thread, I'd assign a score of 26 to an Intelligence this high based on the number of standard deviations it is away from the average. If you are using a ratio IQ of 180, rather than a deviation IQ as is the current practice, that would be the equivalent of an Int 23.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is far more common than an IQ of 180 which, by definition, only 1 in about 18,460,000 could possibly have

The cool (but sad...) thing about that fact is that it means there are quite a few undiscovered IQ 180 people living among the unwashed masses around the world.

That is, if you actually believe that IQ is an objective measure of natural intelligence and not heavily influenced by cultural exposure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm just putting you on notice that if we start going down that particular road again, we'll be done communicating pretty quickly. I'm being neither friendly nor unfriendly in that statement.

I see. So you can slur however you wish and characterize it as putting me on notice without malice, and if I happen to take offense, that would be evidence that I'm acting in the way you slurred me?

I can appreciate the self-serving circularity of that statement. Please, don't take that as intended in any way as an insult towards you, I'm just putting you on notice that further such prevarications will be similarly noted as I think they deserve. This is neither friendly nor unfriendly.

The implication was one of opinion and I did not present or intend it in any other way. In fact, most of the statements involving "that guy" were made in jest. I don't think anyone would think I actually had a meeting with all D&D players and we decided "that guy" sucked, right?

No, it was clearly not immediately apparent that you intended it as a joke. Nor is 'it was a joke' a suitable defense for giving offense. I'll accept that your statement it was intended as a joke, though, and withdraw my accusation of you calling 'badwrongfun.'

See, my argument is far more specific than some are making it out to be. Assertions were made that you either roleplay a particular way or you're doing it wrong - and that the rules made this clear statement of preference a fact. I object to that assertion. That is all, nothing more.

Had that been your argument, rather that 'there is no rule', I would have been fine. I didn't respond to your previous statements where you restricted yourself to just that argument for just that reason. You expanded your argument to include other things, which I disagreed with, and those were what I addressed. If you're pulling back to your previous statement, I have no objections.

However, I will say that I think you're oversimplifying the arguments being made on the other side by saying that they demand a particular way. I read their arguments as a general proscription of 'don't play a smart guy with a 5 INT' and not 'you must play 5 INT this particular way.' They have some general restrictions on preference, which may or may not be agreed with, and have reasonable rules quotes to support them (those same rules can support other choices, I think, if carefully done), and that doesn't boil down to simply 'this way or no way.' I think you're doing your opponents in this discussion a disservice by listening most critically while insisting that you be taken more loosely.

As for the 'IQ equals INTx10' arguments or which edition is what, I've skimmed over those as uninteresting on both sides, so perhaps I missed something in there that's exactly what you're claiming. If so, I'm not speaking to those things, and can't, as I'm intentionally unaware of them or their scope. Feel free to disregard my opinions if such statements are necessary to your argument. I don't care to argue those things, and so won't be the least offended by being disregarded if you, or others, intend to argue them.